swansont

CEOs seem to have been winning, for quite a long time https://www.nevadacurrent.com/blog/ceos-get-richer-while-their-workers-wages-remain-the-same-study-finds/ And workers have not been getting paid in line with their productivity https://m.usw.org/blog/2015/wages-have-been-stagnant-for-40-years-but-its-not-the-fault-of-american-workers

Three velocities. Two objects. The third is the result of the addition of the two objects' velocities.

I thought your point was that GNSS doesn’t rely on relativistic effects. If your point is that there are some relativistic effects that are small, that’s a very different claim. If that doesn’t change your point, you didn’t make your point very well.

The entire quote: “The main sources of relativistic effects on GNSS are relative motion between the satellite and the receiver, potential differences between the satellite and the receiver, and rotation of the Earth. The main relativistic effects on satellite navigation are [49, 51]:  time dilation  time differences because of differences of the gravity field  relativistic effects on frequency  relativistic path range effects  relativistic Earth rotation effects  relativistic effects due to the orbit eccentricity  acceleration of the satellite in the theory of relativity. There are more relativistic effects, but most of them are too small to be significant in satellite navigation” It’s clear you are quoting from a discussion of satellite navigation systems, your posturing to the contrary, but even without this, the fact that the author says “more” should tell you that there are relativistic effects that are big enough to matter. If you were referring to the motion of satellites (orbital mechanics), why are you citing a paper on GNSS?

“Overviews of treatment of relativistic effects on the GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou satellite systems are given” GPS is a satellite navigation system. Did you not read the article you linked to? The one about relativistic effects in satellite navigation systems?

Here’s Wired’s take https://www.wired.com/story/mexico-congress-aliens-fake/

GPS most definitely depends on relativity; the clocks have to be adjusted for kinematic and gravitational time dilation to run at the same rate as the clocks on the ground.

Why 3? The velocity addition formula is for two objects. But if it works for two (and it does), it will work for three. That’s a math issue, and math works that way. And you have not provided evidence that there’s a problem.

The system you described can only exist if there is only one issue and everyone agrees on the approach. If that’s not the case, there will be representatives whose self-interest is not aligned with the voters’

I think this is untrue, as evidenced by the fact that there are people who don’t get elected, having an opposing viewpoint on some issue. The winner is aligned with a majority of voters, but not all. If there is more than one issue, you will have people whose interests align on one issue but not another. A wealthy representative’s self-interest would not align with poor constituents on some economic matters, for example.

Based on subsequent events, meaning you have the benefit of hindsight, and not acknowledging the reality of politics in general or the political views at the time. Compromises had to be made because not everyone agrees on what direction to go, or how to get there, or on what the priorities are, or acknowledging that different people have a different level of comfort with change. The 3/5 compromise was an echo of the debate on slavery in the Declaration of Independence, where a passage was stricken in order to get the southern vote. No compromise, no constitution, so any objection about slavery is moot. Yes! They included a provision to change the constitution, which was an acknowledgement that it was not a finished document.

As opposed to everyone else, who had done so much better at that point.

What do you mean by “restricted to reply”? What, specifically, are you doing? Do you see the “submit reply” button on the lower right, below the text box?

A PhD is not a guarantee of lots of money, or any specific job. The narrative of getting a degree and becoming a professor is not based on the reality of the job market, as CharonY notes. To paraphrase a former boss of mine, a PhD in physics affords the opportunity to work on interesting problems.

Will the next one be inadvertent?

If you drop something on a scale, it will initially register more than the weight of the object. How does one disprove this as the effect?

I’ve read that the flow rate is pretty much constant in an hourglass, except at the very end. There is less sand falling because the distance it falls decreases. It’s not like a liquid, where the flow rate depends on the column height. It’s part of why hourglasses are useful. Only a small fraction of sand is in freefall. But all we have to go by is this video. What is the source of the additional information? How does one disprove an explanation? There are studies that show the extra apparent weight of an hourglass.

@Genady, you are making claims that are not in evidence. Can you share it?

Three derivations of Euler’s formula here: https://mathvault.ca/euler-formula/

Also the issue isn’t merely a lack of hydrogen, it’s a lack of hydrogen in the core, where the fusion takes place. Dumping hydrogen into the star won’t help, unless that hydrogen gets into the core, which has a lot of helium in it as it goes into the red giant phase

https://www.itron.com/na/solutions/product-catalog/everblu-cyble-enhanced “The EverBlu Cyble™ Enhanced is compatible with EverBlu fixed network for daily data transmission or on-request meter reads. … Alternatively, its data can also be collected using AnyQuest™ mobile reading system.“

Sometimes the function is important, rather than the numerical result of a definite integral e.g. if you integrate Fdx, rewritten as mvdv, you get 1/2 mv^2, the equation for kinetic energy Introductory physics has many such examples

Fundamental particles like electrons tend to be points. But they also have a wave nature. The vertical lines are a result of the slits being vertical. If you have diffraction through a circular hole, you get a bright dot surrounded by concentric rings http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/cirapp2.html https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk